Asset Forfeiture

The United States Department of Justice's Asset Forfeiture Program is a nationwide law enforcement program that has become a powerful weapon in the fight against crime. This involves removing the proceeds of crimes used by criminals to continue activity against society. Asset forfeiture has the impact of disrupting criminal activities that would continue to function if the only tool used was conviction and incarceration of certain individuals. While the Department of Justice program applies only to cases developed by enforcement officials in certain agencies of the Federal Government, state and local agencies may have similar programs and are not part of the federal program. (.http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/afp/)

Although the issue has sharply divided opinions, a prime example of how asset forfeiture has been used as a crime fighting tool, on both the federal, state and local levels, is the war on drugs.

On June 17th, 1971, President Richard Nixon declared war on drugs. He referred to the abuse of illegal substances as "public enemy number one in the United States". (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/) US citizens were driven to save the future of this country by saving our people from the evils of illegal drugs. Citizens were accepting of most means deemed necessary to win this war. Because of this, asset forfeiture seemed like the right thing to do. Drug lords were amassing fortunes from the sale of illegal substances, which in turn were draining the finances of the citizens as well as doing them physical harm. It was time to turn

the tables and hit the drug lords in their pockets. With no other visible means of earning income, they lived in luxury. Expensive homes, vehicles, property, airplanes and cash would be seized by law enforcement agencies when it was suspected they were purchased with the proceeds of illegal drug sales. The case and items confiscated would then be used by the agencies to continue the war. This seems ideal to most of us, however, there are problems. (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-108.ZD1.html) For example, with Asset Forfeiture legislation in 1984, federal agencies were given power to seize property merely on the suspicion of a crime. Sometimes, even if you just had "too much" cash on you when law enforcement decided to check you out, it could be taken. (http://www.usdoj.gov/marshals/assets/assets.html) This quite obviously violates a citizen’s rights und the Fourth Amendment: FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' (http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm)

In addition, many believe that asset forfeiture is creating a “double punishment” for a crime. Not only are civil penalties meted out, but massive amounts of cash and property were being seized even in the absence of a conviction. This obviously paves the way to constitutional challenges.

An example of this is O'Connell v. City of Stockton, CA in July, 2007. In a closely divided 4-3 opinion, the California Supreme Court ruled that local governments may not seize the vehicles of people arrested only on suspicion of buying drugs or using prostitutes, the two most common offenses targeted by law enforcement agencies under forfeiture ordinances in a many California cities. The ordinances aimed to reduce drug selling and street prostitution by seizing the cars of customers which would deter future customers. The ruling came in O'Connell v. City of Stockton, where a local woman, Kelly O'Connell, challenged the city's "Seizure and Forfeiture of Nuisance Vehicles" ordinance. The court held that only the state can set punishments for offenses under the state criminal code - not cities. The ruling further stated that cities may not impose punishments for state law violations that are harsher than the state laws themselves. In some California cities, drivers who tried to buy small amounts of marijuana would be issued a ticket of approximately $100. Yet, under the asset forfeiture programs, their vehicles had been seized. (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/496/california_supreme_court) There is, however, the opposing sentiment that seizing vehicles was a valuable law enforcement tool which allowed law enforcement agencies to take care of community issues and improve the quality of life in the neighborhoods.

On April 25, 2000, President Clinton